Whole breast and regional nodal irradiation in prone versus supine position in left sided breast cancer

Background: Prone whole breast irradiation (WBI) leads to reduced heart and lung doses in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. In this feasibility trial, we investigated the prone position for whole breast + lymph node irradiation (WB + LNI). Methods: A new support device was developed for optimal target coverage, on which patients are positioned in a position resembling a phase from the crawl swimming technique (prone crawl position). Five left sided breast cancer patients were included and simulated in supine and prone position. For each patient, a treatment plan was made in prone and supine position for WB + LNI to the whole axilla and the unoperated part of the axilla. Patients served as their own controls for comparing dosimetry of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) in prone versus in supine position. Results: Target volume coverage differed only slightly between prone and supine position. Doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in prone position for ipsilateral lung (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), contralateral lung (Dmean, D2), contralateral breast (Dmean, D2 and for total axillary WB + LNI also V5), thyroid (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), oesophagus (Dmean and for partial axillary WB + LNI also D2 and V5), skin (D2 and for partial axillary WB + LNI V105 and V107). There were no significant differences for heart and humeral head doses. Conclusions: Prone crawl position in WB + LNI allows for good breast and nodal target coverage with better sparing of ipsilateral lung, thyroid, contralateral breast, contralateral lung and oesophagus when compared to supine position. There is no difference in heart and humeral head doses

Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes

Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale(1-3). Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4-5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter(4); identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation(5,6); analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution(7); describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity(8,9); and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes(8,10-18).Peer reviewe

Risks of leukemia in Japanese atomic bomb survivors, in women treated for cervical cancer, and in patients treated for ankylosing spondylitis

The dose-response relationship for radiation-induced leukemia was examined in a pooled analysis of three exposed populations: Japanese atomic bomb survivors, women treated for cervical cancer, and patients irradiated for ankylosing spondylitis. A total of 383 leukemias were observed among 283,139 study subjects. Considering all leukemias apart from chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the optimal relative risk model had a dose response with a purely quadratic term representing induction and an exponential term consistent with cell sterilization at high doses; the addition of a linear induction term did not improve the fit of the model. The relative risk decreased with increasing time since exposure and increasing attained age, and there were significant (P 0.10 for all three subtypes). The nonsignificant indications of differences between the three datasets when leukemia subtypes were considered separately may be explained by random variation, although a contribution from differences in exposure dose-rate regimens, inhomogeneous dose distribution within the bone marrow, inadequate adjustment for cell sterilization effects, or errors in dosimetry could have played a role

New models for evaluation of radiation-induced lifetime cancer risk and its uncertainty employed in the UNSCEAR 2006 report.

Generalized relative and absolute risk models are fitted to the latest Japanese atomic bomb survivor solid cancer and leukemia mortality data (through 2000), with the latest (DS02) dosimetry, by classical (regression calibration) and Bayesian techniques, taking account of errors in dose estimates and other uncertainties. Linear-quadratic and linear-quadratic-exponential models are fitted and used to assess risks for contemporary populations of China, Japan, Puerto Rico, the U.S. and the UK. Many of these models are the same as or very similar to models used in the UNSCEAR 2006 report. For a test dose of 0.1 Sv, the solid cancer mortality for a UK population using the generalized linear-quadratic relative risk model is estimated as 5.4% Sv−1 [90% Bayesian credible interval (BCI) 3.1, 8.0]. At 0.1 Sv, leukemia mortality for a UK population using the generalized linear-quadratic relative risk model is estimated as 0.50% Sv−1 (90% BCI 0.11, 0.97). Risk estimates varied little between populations; at 0.1 Sv the central estimates ranged from 3.7 to 5.4% Sv−1 for solid cancers and from 0.4 to 0.6% Sv−1 for leukemia. Analyses using regression calibration techniques yield central estimates of risk very similar to those for the Bayesian approach. The central estimates of population risk were similar for the generalized absolute risk model and the relative risk model. Linear-quadratic-exponential models predict lower risks (at least at low test doses) and appear to fit as well, although for other (theoretical) reasons we favor the simpler linear-quadratic models